Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Indian bride portrait

Indian bride portrait
Indian wedding
 * Reason:I think it’s well posed, colorful and somewhat exotic.
 * Articles this image appears in:Wedding dress
 * Creator:en:User:Mactographer
 * Nominator: Mactographer


 * Nominate &mdash; Mactographer 09:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Pictures of people have a hard time here for some reason. This one is not bad, and I like how it shows several features of the bride, like gown, henna tattoos, and jewlery. I holding back the support due to size reasons for now. 0.6 MP seems a little measly to me. --Dschwen 14:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support now. I sort of agree with Alves on the occidental bride thing, but this picture has informational value for me, and I really like the composition (plus the quality is great). As Alves also said, if the evaluation process were completely objective we could all go home :-) --Dschwen 19:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral I must agree with the above statement.-- ¿  Why  1  9  9  1   ESP.  |  Sign Here  15:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2 a very encyclopedic image, also very clear in my eyes. &mdash; Arjun 16:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't think the expression of the bride is particularly interesting, which should be a most important element in any human portrait. Because I also don't believe exoticism is enough for enc value, the question I put to myself is: how would this picture be evaluated if this same woman were dressed as an occidental bride? - Alvesgaspar 17:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Version #2 "Here's the original size and resolution file.&mdash;Mactographer 19:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And the quality is great even at that size. --Dschwen 19:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support version 2 (which is really version one if you think about it...but whatever). The expression is fine. The exoticness compensates for it.--HereToHelp 22:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Technically speaking this is a poor picture for illustrative purposes.  The subject is not well framed; both her fingers and her shoulder are cropped off, which is quite unacceptable.  For documentary purposes, the colors and expression are what they are, and the image does appear to be appropriately focused and all that.  This is undoubtedly a very decent memento of someone's wedding, but as a documentary image it is definitely lacking.  As to exoticness: I cannot see how an image of an Indian bribe is "exotic", given the rather large number of women who every day must either look like this or are trying to look like this.  I'm all for combating cultural bias, but we don't do that by parading everyday images of non-Western culture as "exotic". Kelly Martin (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The exoticness specifically referred to western bias. I laude you political correctness, but simply ignoring that a westerner has a western-bias is counterproductive. Reflecting upon it like Alves is more helpful. Fact is Alves(?) and me are from the western hemisphere and while statistically (I guess) one in six weddings is an indian wedding virtually no indian weddings take place on our doorsteps. --Dschwen 08:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- It's an okay portrait, but generally an unremarkable image and not of the best Wikipedia has to offer, IMO. By exotic, I assume is meant "foreign," in which case essentializing western perspectives is inappropriate for an encyclopedia used and edited by people from all over and from lots of different cultures, regardless of where they live. (Any weddings on my doorstep are as likely to be "non-western" as "western," and I'm in the western hemisphere too). And if the "exotic" factor isn't heavily weighted, then there's really no "wow" factor here at all. Bobanny 18:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Uhum, it is as likely? Well my friend the reality here is different. And how spectacular or surprising an image seems is in the eye of the boholder after all. Ah well and forgive me for not tip-toeing around backwards and colonialistic terms like exotic. --Dschwen 21:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That comment annoyed me especially since I tried to point out my personal awareness of that bias just in the paragraph above, but no I still get the same lecture again. --Dschwen 21:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt it's different where you are; I was just trying to point out that your reality isn't the universal reality of the western hemisphere. It's not about political correctness for me, just ordinary correctness, and I don't see how acknowledging a bias justifies incorporating that bias in an encyclopedia. I agree that what strikes us as exotic can be subjective, but I don't think subjectively held impressions should be weighted heavily in selecting a featured picture is all. Sheeesh. Bobanny 22:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if everybody votes to his subjective liking and the audience here is as universal as you say, then any bias should even out. If on the other hand the votership and readership has western bias so be it, then the picture has a novelty value for the majority making it featureworthy. I cannot see anything wrong with that. With the same logic a picture of a rural african village would be unremarkable to you, because millons of people live in such villages and only cultural bias makes them seem special. --Dschwen 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My concern is simply that I don't believe that seeing the subject as exotic should tilt the scales in the way that, say, historical significance or extreme rarity does for evaluating photos. For me personally, the subject is exotic, as I'm not Indian, have never been to an Indian wedding, and was raised in a culture where colourful Indian traditions are exotic because they are different. But the Indian bride, as with the rural African village, are common enough subjects that other criteria need to be exceptional to be feature-worthy, regardless of how novel or exotic the subject seems to me or you. I also believe that Wikipedia is dominated by male editors, Americans, etc., and that awareness of that should be used to try and overcome biases, with the ultimate goal of making Wikipedia more inviting to people who aren't as well represented, which in the end would make it a more authoritative source. Maybe that's a little pc, but it's also an ideal for Wikipedia with practical implications that I don't believe many editors would take issue with.Bobanny 01:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Systemic bias, dshwen. Since most wikipedians are western, these pics are bound to be considered "exotic" by the community. We have featured pictures of western stuff too that other cultures might think exotic.. it's not that bad --⁪froth T C  00:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * oppose per bobanny --⁪froth T C  00:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment & Question That comment from Fruitbasket was rude, but it WAS a support. Doesn't it count in the vote?  Why was it removed? -- Mactographer 01:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly I didn't think of that aspect. But I'm not sure whether we shoud walue such votes. I for one would happily do without. But I guess it's up to the closer, so let me note plus one removed vandal support. --Dschwen 09:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. While I'm not overly fond of staged portraits, this one certainly does summarise (to the best of my knowledge anyway) a typical indian bride's costume/appearance. Quality is excellent. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Version 2. The quality is reasonable and "exotic" or not, it depicts its subject well. Nautica Shad e  s  11:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Question - Sorry to raise the question, but is there an authorization of the bride to have her picture reproduced here? That shouldn't be difficult, I presume the photo was shot in the US, right? - Alvesgaspar 14:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Yes. She signed a wedding contract that allows uses like this.  However, this is the first time I've heard the issue raised on Wiki.  Tho I've wondered about it regarding other photos. --Mactographer 05:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 07:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)